All Just Is, E.C.Nemeth [important books to read .TXT] 📗

capable of grasping universal truths by inference from and adherence to other, lesser levels of truth. That is, by consciously restricting our focus to one level of truth we can deduce the ultimate truth that supports that level. Any contradictions that arise can be assumed to be caused by inadvertently moving from one level of truth to another level while following the same line of reasoning. To reitterate: a line of inquiry must adhere to the same level of truth throughout in order to remain within its logical parameters. With this idea acknowledged we can continue.
Most arguments about the beginning and structure of the universe start with the premise that existence is universal. All this means is that matter exists fundamentally, without further need to refine the term. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor does it have a first cause. Matter just is.
Ignoring for the moment the obvious fact that the above definition is similar to a definition of the Divine, it can be accepted that existence is universal. What cannot be as easily accepted is that existence does not require perception. What would it mean to exist without perception? More to the point: What does it mean to a rock that it exists?
By starting from the idea that existence is universal these questions are sidestepped. A rock exists regardless of the rock’s state of awareness. Just as with life itself, awareness is relegated to minor status as a freak byproduct of existence. By divorcing awareness from existence science has created an environment that suits its own needs. This is because science is the awareness of existence, by definition, and so science is that which science claims is of insignificant value. For this reason, that awareness represents a contradiction or at least a glitch in the scientific model of the universe, science removes awareness from significance and then employs awareness to argue for the fundamental existence of inanimate matter.
Without awareness there would be no way to experience anything. And without experience there would be no way to infer that existence is universal.
Science serves it own needs by asserting that only it can decipher the mystery of this universe and by insisting that it must have the final word on the ‘what is so’, on the construction or revision of the standard model. Like the bleached flour society has fallen in love with, science has removed the essential ingredients of reality in favor of a lifeless, easier to handle truth. Then, realizing that those elements it discarded were crucial, science has tried to fortify its construction by reintroducing those very ingredients in a controllable manner. How can science claim logical authority in the effort to define the importance of awareness or anything else even though this flies in the face of the fact that it regards awareness as having no primary significance?
Consider the old koan: If a tree falls in the forest but no one is nearby to hear it, does it make a sound? Many would argue that it would, indeed, make a sound - that just because no one hears it has no bearing on the physics involved in a tree falling. There would be snapping limbs and a great rustling of the leaves followed by a mighty thump as the trunk crashed to the ground. This description could be verified, those would argue further, by actually going to a forest and witnessing first hand the felling of a similar tree. It, they would conclude with vigor, would certainly make a sound.
Those upholding this viewpoint presuppose that the energy released during the episode of ‘falling tree’ as vibrations travelling through the medium of air is the unmanifest sound itself. All that is then required is a witness, an ear, to experience it and thereby cause it to manifest as sound. But this stance also presupposes awareness, which is implicitly excluded in the posing of the question. The question states that there is no awareness present and so no sound can be made manifest because that requires an ear and only a form of awareness can possess an auditory organ. Suffice it to say that the tree would make a sound because a forest implies animals that live there and so it would be their ears that would manifest the sound.
At first glance this koan seems innocent enough but upon further reflection it illustrates well the intrinsic value of awareness. What difference does it make whether the falling tree makes a sound in the absence of awareness? Similarily, what significance is there in the existence of a rock if not for that which can contemplate that reality? In the grandest sense of all, what is the importance of the universe without something that can appreciate it? If there is no awareness there is no manifestation of any kind, only an unmanifest potential; it requires awareness to give meaning to the universe.
The bottom line is that awareness must also be taken for granted: Like existence, awareness just is, too. Universal logic requires awareness because awareness resulted from the existence of the universe. To presuppose otherwise is fruitless; we are living proof that awareness is an essential ingredient of the universe.
To say the universe is composed of matter is not the same as saying it is manifest. In fact, the universe as pictured by the scientific model is unmanifest because the awareness of phenomena does not impinge on its existence. The manifestation of matter, on the other hand, is the realization that matter exists and that realization requires awareness.
It seems then that there are two opposing viewpoints: the universe is essentially either manifest or unmanifest. If it is unmanifest then existence is exclusively universal while if it is manifest then awareness must also be universal.
Again, science concludes that the universe is real, is manifest, but considers the awareness of that fact to be of secondary significance. Yet that is a contradiction for if something is manifest, is real, there must be that which is aware of the fact that the something under consideration is real. The concept ‘real’, or any other concept for that matter, has meaning only within the context of awareness.
Of course awareness, so far as we know, must be harbored inside life. Which means that awareness must come as a package with life itself. And life, again so far as we know, is composed of matter. So the existence of matter is universal, yes, but for phenomena to be manifest requires awareness and that requires life, which is composed of matter. So, life is matter. That is: LIFE MATTERS.
From here, it is easy to see that there seems to be a reason for the existence of life. Specifically, the universe seems to require sentience. Sentience, from this point of view, seems to give flesh to the universe; not the other way around as the scientific model would have it.
The above is in no way a comprehensive or exhaustive summation of the basic arguments regarding this premise. Many volumes have been written devoted to this line of inquiry. This work attempts to begin from the premise that life matters, for the reasons outlined above and others that will be explored throughout the book, and leaves this specific debate for others to pursue.
Life matters and it was part of the design or template – the matrix, of the universe in order to facilitate the evolution of sentience. It is sentience that determines what is real and due to the nature of sentience, as will be discussed in more detail later, what is real is anything that can be experienced.
We have now come full circle and have arrived at a partial answer to the original question: What is the purpose of life?
Purpose requires intention and only that which is sentient can intend. The phrase ‘purpose of life’, then, infers the existence of a sentient being that intended the creation of life. Life cannot not exist just like matter is believed incapable of being destroyed. So there must be that which preceded and consequently intended the creation of the universe that was (and arguably still is) itself alive.
So, to question the purpose of life is to ask another question altogether: Is there a Creator, a Divine Sentience? Or to pose the question simply: Does God exist?
We have now reached the crucial point in the discussion.
The logical contradiction created due to the incompatibility of the concept of ‘Creator’ when taken in the context of ‘universe’, results in the necessity to chooce one of two premises:
God exists.
The universe exists.
By accepting one viewpoint the other is automatically rejected. This fact is hidden and ignored by the scientific model but it cannot hide from the discerning eye of truth. If existence is universal then God does not exist. Of course, the truth of the last statement hinges upon the definition of God. To understand the best definition of God is to understand the nature of thought. Although this particular topic will be explored in detail in the body of this work, a quick study of Symbology is required at this time.
(Due to the possibility of an exception cropping up later in the book let’s restate the above with a different emphasis. ‘In the context of the universe’ means from the point of view of the universe. From its point of view there can be no god because the universe is that which has no outside, by definition. And God must lie ‘outside’ of its pervue. On the other hand, ‘in the context of God’ means from the point of view of God. From this point of view, virtually anything is possible, including the simultaneous existence of the universe.)
The creation of symbols that represent real objects and ideas results in a system that basically describes what an object is by describing all the other objects that are not the original object under scrutiny. That is, Symbology makes sense of the world in terms of what is the object and what is not the object. This method works well when applied to the many discrete and finite objects in the universe. It collapses when the universe as a whole is considered as the object because, since the universe is everything, there is nothing that is not the universe. The universe is both the concept and the context at once and that defies the usual method of delineation employed by Symbology.
It turns out that this is the best possible description of the Divine as well so we arrive at:
God is all there is and all there is not.
What this means is that if God exists then God is all there is and all there is not and so the universe is God, too. But this is impossible because, for example, we are not aware that we are God. On the contrary, since we are aware of our limited individuality the existence of God is impossible, by definition, since then we are not God and God must be everything in order to exist. (Unless, of course, we are somehow being deluded into thinking we are individual entities when in fact we are just God in a state of amnesia.) This topic will also be explored later in more detail. Suffice it to say that a choice must be made in terms of what is real, the universe (i.e. – us, man, sentience) or God.
The scientific model declares that the universe is independent of first cause and that its processes rely on preset and immutable laws. According to the model the universe is just a machine that runs on its own without need for intervention from some outside source. Further, it states that the universe can itself claim the right of being eternal, with no end and no beginning. But this ignores the fact that the context of universe has a